All I know is that just about every XM/Sirius subscriber I know wants this to happen too, myself included. It seems those that are opposed to it don't even own Sat radio, and have no intentions of buying it...
(Please... if you have Sat Radio and DON'T want this to go through, could you start a thread or something... I'd love to know the reasons why).
If there are two major satellite radio providers, each one will try to outdo the other. Prices will remain fair and they will both continue to improve.
If there is only one, there is less reason to innovate. Prices may go up since there is no competition to worry about. The technology and service will stagnate.
This is the way business works. Competition is good for the consumer. I am definitely hoping the merger does NOT go through.
I don't own one either, but I want to and have been wanting to since last year when this was first merger info was released. It interests me, but not enough to jump in knowing something this big is in question. I might be completely missing it, but simply cannot see how a merger would be good for me on the consumer end of things.
Take the only two direct competitors in the field, merge the two together, and what do you get? No competition. The two companies need each other to keep each other competitive. And no, I do not think they can claim other competition from land stations, iPods, etc... Those are things that might take time away from me listening sat radio, but I do not have to pay a monthly fee to use them. Apples & Oranges.
"If there are two major satellite radio providers, each one will try to outdo the other. Prices will remain fair and they will both continue to improve."
Actually, competing with each other has made things worse for both companies as they have been forced to sign huge contracts in order to have exlusive content. This has caused both companies to be running in the red.
Without a merger, one of these companies will fail and we will be stuck with only one anyway. without being able to absorb the assets of the failed company, the remaining one will be forced to raise prices.
the two companies know much better than you, I, or the FCC does what is most profitable. And don't go crying 'monopoly'...monopoly power, while often screamed about, is markedly less possible than you'd think: sowell's 'Basic Economics' would be a good place to start, should you want to learn about that.
That the FCC and DoJ should even be *allowed* to have a say in this is deplorable. This is a luxury good, a completely optional thing. If these two companies get together, and start charging 'too much', people are free to drop the service. If they *really* start charging too much, the barriers to entry are obviously not infinite (as we got two satellite radio companies *somehow* by now), and smart capital could find a way to launch a competing service. Competition (between the two companies), or even the threat of competition (from a new satellite company post-merger), is what keeps prices down.
How can you say terrestrial radio, iPods, cd's, etc. aren't direct competition? If I’m listening to one I can’t listen to the other. If Sat prices go up then I could just stop paying and listen to regular radio or my iPod. Right now it seems downright stupid that I have to listen to Sirius for NFL and XM for MLB... how is that good for the consumer?
The same people who are glad to see BluRay win over HD-DVD (hence now there is a "monopoly" on high-def physical format movies) are yelling that we need to keep 2 sat radio providers. With all the competition coming up from iTunes, high-def IPTV, downloads, etc. both BlueRay and HD-DVD were going to do poorly, but with one winner they have a chance. Same goes for sat radio, except the 2 providers actually have a good relationship and want to merge (not make war). Imagine if one of the providers just died like HD-DVD, then consumers with gear for that provider would lose big time (even worse than HD-DVD buyers, at least those players still work with the discs you have, a sat radio with no signal is just a brick in your dashboard). There is even a chance that eventually they would both die in that scenario (both weakened by competing with eachother and the survivor not being able to absorb the customers of the other).
Prices can still go up with multiple providers. Look at cable TV. Prices go up all the time and they have competition from DTV. Look at the wireless providers, they never lower prices, they just keep adding minutes that you may not even use. For sat radio, there is no guarantee that prices will go up with a merger (unless you want a combined package of all channels from both providers). They still need to attract new customers (with or without a merger) so raising prices is a good way to turn new customers away. The incentives are there. Plus doubling the channels likely means more diversity in programming long-term (right now they have to largely duplicate each other).
FYI, I don't have sat radio but I have been on the fence... I'd be more likely to buy in (equipment, etc.) if I didn't have to choose between this set of Sirius channels that I want and this other set of XM channels that I want (as well as not having to fear that I'm going to buy equipment for the dying company - I already got burned by HD-DVD thinking both would coexist for many years with dual-format players and dual-format discs).
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ben @ Mar 6th 2008 8:18AM
all i know is that howard stern wants this to happen, so thats that :-)
Brodie @ Mar 6th 2008 8:54AM
All I know is that just about every XM/Sirius subscriber I know wants this to happen too, myself included. It seems those that are opposed to it don't even own Sat radio, and have no intentions of buying it...
(Please... if you have Sat Radio and DON'T want this to go through, could you start a thread or something... I'd love to know the reasons why).
Zorin @ Mar 6th 2008 9:24AM
It's called competition.
If there are two major satellite radio providers, each one will try to outdo the other. Prices will remain fair and they will both continue to improve.
If there is only one, there is less reason to innovate. Prices may go up since there is no competition to worry about. The technology and service will stagnate.
This is the way business works. Competition is good for the consumer. I am definitely hoping the merger does NOT go through.
Jamus @ Mar 6th 2008 9:34AM
I don't own one either, but I want to and have been wanting to since last year when this was first merger info was released. It interests me, but not enough to jump in knowing something this big is in question. I might be completely missing it, but simply cannot see how a merger would be good for me on the consumer end of things.
Take the only two direct competitors in the field, merge the two together, and what do you get? No competition. The two companies need each other to keep each other competitive. And no, I do not think they can claim other competition from land stations, iPods, etc... Those are things that might take time away from me listening sat radio, but I do not have to pay a monthly fee to use them. Apples & Oranges.
LC @ Mar 6th 2008 9:49AM
"If there are two major satellite radio providers, each one will try to outdo the other. Prices will remain fair and they will both continue to improve."
Actually, competing with each other has made things worse for both companies as they have been forced to sign huge contracts in order to have exlusive content. This has caused both companies to be running in the red.
Without a merger, one of these companies will fail and we will be stuck with only one anyway. without being able to absorb the assets of the failed company, the remaining one will be forced to raise prices.
OnlyShawn @ Mar 6th 2008 10:20AM
the two companies know much better than you, I, or the FCC does what is most profitable. And don't go crying 'monopoly'...monopoly power, while often screamed about, is markedly less possible than you'd think: sowell's 'Basic Economics' would be a good place to start, should you want to learn about that.
That the FCC and DoJ should even be *allowed* to have a say in this is deplorable. This is a luxury good, a completely optional thing. If these two companies get together, and start charging 'too much', people are free to drop the service. If they *really* start charging too much, the barriers to entry are obviously not infinite (as we got two satellite radio companies *somehow* by now), and smart capital could find a way to launch a competing service. Competition (between the two companies), or even the threat of competition (from a new satellite company post-merger), is what keeps prices down.
BoozeRob @ Mar 6th 2008 11:01AM
@ Jamus...
How can you say terrestrial radio, iPods, cd's, etc. aren't direct competition? If I’m listening to one I can’t listen to the other. If Sat prices go up then I could just stop paying and listen to regular radio or my iPod. Right now it seems downright stupid that I have to listen to Sirius for NFL and XM for MLB... how is that good for the consumer?
kballs @ Mar 6th 2008 3:00PM
Yeah, like there isn't competition to sat radio.
The same people who are glad to see BluRay win over HD-DVD (hence now there is a "monopoly" on high-def physical format movies) are yelling that we need to keep 2 sat radio providers. With all the competition coming up from iTunes, high-def IPTV, downloads, etc. both BlueRay and HD-DVD were going to do poorly, but with one winner they have a chance. Same goes for sat radio, except the 2 providers actually have a good relationship and want to merge (not make war). Imagine if one of the providers just died like HD-DVD, then consumers with gear for that provider would lose big time (even worse than HD-DVD buyers, at least those players still work with the discs you have, a sat radio with no signal is just a brick in your dashboard). There is even a chance that eventually they would both die in that scenario (both weakened by competing with eachother and the survivor not being able to absorb the customers of the other).
Prices can still go up with multiple providers. Look at cable TV. Prices go up all the time and they have competition from DTV. Look at the wireless providers, they never lower prices, they just keep adding minutes that you may not even use. For sat radio, there is no guarantee that prices will go up with a merger (unless you want a combined package of all channels from both providers). They still need to attract new customers (with or without a merger) so raising prices is a good way to turn new customers away. The incentives are there. Plus doubling the channels likely means more diversity in programming long-term (right now they have to largely duplicate each other).
FYI, I don't have sat radio but I have been on the fence... I'd be more likely to buy in (equipment, etc.) if I didn't have to choose between this set of Sirius channels that I want and this other set of XM channels that I want (as well as not having to fear that I'm going to buy equipment for the dying company - I already got burned by HD-DVD thinking both would coexist for many years with dual-format players and dual-format discs).